Still not completely sure that Stay Sacramento is a group of elitists who are only out for their own good, at the expense of the betterment of the community? Take a look at their donor list from a geographical view.
View Stay Sacramento Supporters List in a larger map
I want you to note a couple things. First, obviously the majority of their donors come from the southern end of town (especially south of Fair Oaks). No real surprise there. But also notice how many donors are completely outside of the area. These are the ones who trying to protect their money, either through relationships with the power brokers down south, or by being remembered when Arden Arcade gets annexed by Sacramento and new work is up for grabs.
Stay Sacramento is an elitist organization that wants to put your families at risk in order to secure their own fiefdoms. Don't buy the lies. Do your own research and get the facts. The numbers are out there.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
Do you have an extra $50,000 sitting around? Yeah, me neither. But apparently the Plumbers & Pipefitters Union Local 422 does. California law requires that all political organization that collect contributions file form 460 to indicate the sources of their funding. Stay Sacramento's 460 was filed this week, and the information it contains is telling.
Stay Sacramento's total monetary contributions for the covered period were $79,422. Of that amount, $50,000 came from the single union donation. That means that 62% of the funding for this "grassroots effort with little funds to defeat the Arden-Arcade cityhood proposal*" who are "up against a well-funded campaign of special outside interests who are trying to buy their way into fat contracts with a new city*" comes from a labor union. Now I'm sure that this union isn't coughing up 50 large out of altruistic motivations.
(*quoted from the Stay Sacramento web site, October 9, 2010)
So how about the other 29 grand? Well, a few thousand of that comes from lobbyists, including lobyists representing the mobile home, pharmaceutical and liquor industries. These are the folks who are fighting special interests?! Folks, these are the special interests! Lord knows we don't have enough mobile home parks and liquor stores here.
I think my personal favorite is the $500 from Jeffrey Raimundo, principal in the consulting firm of Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher. Mr. Raimundo does not live in the proposed city limits, but apparently feels that what happens here can affect him. I'm sure that the checks totalling $17,910 that his firm, who also represented Kevin Johnson's '08 mayoral campaign, received from Stay Sacramento were just a coincidence.
So who else is involved in thie grassroots effort? Well, let's see... there's former Sheriff Lou Blanas, who also happens to be an owner in the new casino/card room up on Auburn Blvd. at the Marconi curve. If you look at a map of the proposed city boundaries, you'll see a little chunk notched into the northwest corner. That's where the card room resides, outside of Sac city and Arden Arcade. But if we do incorporate, that area will fall within our sphere of influence, meaning we will have some degree of say in what goes on there.
And let's not forget Tim Cahill, who inherited and married into a ton of real estate along Fulton Avenue, including at least one property rented by a massage parlor. Mr Cahill assured everyone at the recent Sierrs Oaks homeowner's meeting that this facilty was thoroughly checked out and supervised by the county before opening. So I'm sure it's just accidental that the place has a locked door, white blinds covering all the windows, and a video camera over the door. After all, a legitimate business can't be too sure these days.
The more we learn about Stay Sacramento, the more we see evidence of what we've always known - these people will do anything, including lying to your face - to stop incorporation. Why? I think the answer comes from the television piece I was in for News 10 earlier this week. In it, Doug Elmets, another rich Stay Sac supporter, stated the truth so plainly it was funny. Sierra Oaks, Arden Oaks, and Arden Park want to remain their own little elitist enclaves. They don't want to be associated with the likes you you and me. But there aren't enough of them to make Measure D fail. So they will make up lies and distort facts just to keep from being considered part of the community.
Keep in mind that for the past several years Stay Sacramento has been telling us they are the little guys, trying to fight the power of special interests that funded the incorporation campaign. Who were these special interests? They were the local parks districts, who knew they could improve services in their own facilities by partnering with the new city. They were other cities in Sacramento County, who knew we represented a real chance to make sure our "regional voice" wasn't centered between H and I streets downtown. And they were hundreds of people just like you and me, the special interests who wanted life to be better for our kids. Who wanted to see the hookers and gangs that have moved into the area sent packing. Who want to feel safe when they walk down our streets.
That's my special interest, and I hope it's yours too.
Stay Sacramento's total monetary contributions for the covered period were $79,422. Of that amount, $50,000 came from the single union donation. That means that 62% of the funding for this "grassroots effort with little funds to defeat the Arden-Arcade cityhood proposal*" who are "up against a well-funded campaign of special outside interests who are trying to buy their way into fat contracts with a new city*" comes from a labor union. Now I'm sure that this union isn't coughing up 50 large out of altruistic motivations.
(*quoted from the Stay Sacramento web site, October 9, 2010)
So how about the other 29 grand? Well, a few thousand of that comes from lobbyists, including lobyists representing the mobile home, pharmaceutical and liquor industries. These are the folks who are fighting special interests?! Folks, these are the special interests! Lord knows we don't have enough mobile home parks and liquor stores here.
I think my personal favorite is the $500 from Jeffrey Raimundo, principal in the consulting firm of Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher. Mr. Raimundo does not live in the proposed city limits, but apparently feels that what happens here can affect him. I'm sure that the checks totalling $17,910 that his firm, who also represented Kevin Johnson's '08 mayoral campaign, received from Stay Sacramento were just a coincidence.
So who else is involved in thie grassroots effort? Well, let's see... there's former Sheriff Lou Blanas, who also happens to be an owner in the new casino/card room up on Auburn Blvd. at the Marconi curve. If you look at a map of the proposed city boundaries, you'll see a little chunk notched into the northwest corner. That's where the card room resides, outside of Sac city and Arden Arcade. But if we do incorporate, that area will fall within our sphere of influence, meaning we will have some degree of say in what goes on there.
And let's not forget Tim Cahill, who inherited and married into a ton of real estate along Fulton Avenue, including at least one property rented by a massage parlor. Mr Cahill assured everyone at the recent Sierrs Oaks homeowner's meeting that this facilty was thoroughly checked out and supervised by the county before opening. So I'm sure it's just accidental that the place has a locked door, white blinds covering all the windows, and a video camera over the door. After all, a legitimate business can't be too sure these days.
The more we learn about Stay Sacramento, the more we see evidence of what we've always known - these people will do anything, including lying to your face - to stop incorporation. Why? I think the answer comes from the television piece I was in for News 10 earlier this week. In it, Doug Elmets, another rich Stay Sac supporter, stated the truth so plainly it was funny. Sierra Oaks, Arden Oaks, and Arden Park want to remain their own little elitist enclaves. They don't want to be associated with the likes you you and me. But there aren't enough of them to make Measure D fail. So they will make up lies and distort facts just to keep from being considered part of the community.
Keep in mind that for the past several years Stay Sacramento has been telling us they are the little guys, trying to fight the power of special interests that funded the incorporation campaign. Who were these special interests? They were the local parks districts, who knew they could improve services in their own facilities by partnering with the new city. They were other cities in Sacramento County, who knew we represented a real chance to make sure our "regional voice" wasn't centered between H and I streets downtown. And they were hundreds of people just like you and me, the special interests who wanted life to be better for our kids. Who wanted to see the hookers and gangs that have moved into the area sent packing. Who want to feel safe when they walk down our streets.
That's my special interest, and I hope it's yours too.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Liar Liar Pants on Fire!
With the recent economic problems that we are all seeing, I have to wonder if the Bee had to lay off all of its fact checkers. This morning's edition has an editorial coming out against incorporation. But, there are so many distortions and outright untruths in this editorial that it's probably a good thing there is no byline at the top.
Arden Arcade's numbers are solid. The most recent study was done with the latest available numbers, well after we had entered the current recession. Future predictions are based on maintaining the status quo, which means staying in a recession for the next ten years. Do we really think this downturn is going to last that long?
Whether or not "now" is the right time is a moot question. The city can say they have no plans for annexation, but they have taken the first legal step toward doing so by including us in their general plan. While incorporation is on the table they can't move forward, so there is no harm in making the claim that they don't wan't us - other than another outright lie. But any time after the election, if cityhood fails, they can declare we are within their sphere of influence. That is their next step, and will effectively prohibit us from any chance to incorporate. Then it's just a matter of time until they make annexation formal. And of course, it will be simple enough to say they came to realize how much better things will be for us under their watchful care. Just like North Sacramento (now known as Del Paso Heights). But if we decide the timing is wrong, there will not be another chance. As Elvis once crooned, it's now or never.
Most cityhood supporters, myself included, have no aspirations for public office. All I want is a place to raise my kids where they will be safe, and where they will want to live when they grow up and start families. The 100,000 residents of Arden Arcade can't fix the messed up federal or state systems, but they can make life better here and now, for themselves and their families.
Candidates, I offer this modest proposal. In the spirit of fairness, and how the opposition is acting toward us, I suggest that all future campaign literature should include the quote, straight out of this piece: "Urban areas like Arden Arcade ought to be in a city, and residents should have more local control."
***
After posting this earlier today I've started to receive notes asking me to urge readers to cancel their Bee subscriptions. Frankly, I think the Bee is quite used to this, and knows it only makes a blip on the radar for a short time, and once the heat is off, things go back to normal. But they do listen to complaints from subscribers. Give 'em a call, let them know you think their editorial is a steaming pile. Better yet, go to the online version and post a comment. Pick one thing from the garbage heap that you can address with clarity, and set them straight on it. Be courteous and polite, but let them know they can't get away with this. If we could get a thousand comments on their site, people will notice.
Arden Arcade's numbers are solid. The most recent study was done with the latest available numbers, well after we had entered the current recession. Future predictions are based on maintaining the status quo, which means staying in a recession for the next ten years. Do we really think this downturn is going to last that long?
Whether or not "now" is the right time is a moot question. The city can say they have no plans for annexation, but they have taken the first legal step toward doing so by including us in their general plan. While incorporation is on the table they can't move forward, so there is no harm in making the claim that they don't wan't us - other than another outright lie. But any time after the election, if cityhood fails, they can declare we are within their sphere of influence. That is their next step, and will effectively prohibit us from any chance to incorporate. Then it's just a matter of time until they make annexation formal. And of course, it will be simple enough to say they came to realize how much better things will be for us under their watchful care. Just like North Sacramento (now known as Del Paso Heights). But if we decide the timing is wrong, there will not be another chance. As Elvis once crooned, it's now or never.
Most cityhood supporters, myself included, have no aspirations for public office. All I want is a place to raise my kids where they will be safe, and where they will want to live when they grow up and start families. The 100,000 residents of Arden Arcade can't fix the messed up federal or state systems, but they can make life better here and now, for themselves and their families.
Candidates, I offer this modest proposal. In the spirit of fairness, and how the opposition is acting toward us, I suggest that all future campaign literature should include the quote, straight out of this piece: "Urban areas like Arden Arcade ought to be in a city, and residents should have more local control."
***
After posting this earlier today I've started to receive notes asking me to urge readers to cancel their Bee subscriptions. Frankly, I think the Bee is quite used to this, and knows it only makes a blip on the radar for a short time, and once the heat is off, things go back to normal. But they do listen to complaints from subscribers. Give 'em a call, let them know you think their editorial is a steaming pile. Better yet, go to the online version and post a comment. Pick one thing from the garbage heap that you can address with clarity, and set them straight on it. Be courteous and polite, but let them know they can't get away with this. If we could get a thousand comments on their site, people will notice.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Follow the Leader
A quote from this morning's Sacramento Bee:
"A once tattered and neglected corner of The Uncity, that huge swath of unincorporated Sacramento County, Citrus Heights has transformed itself in just 13 years since it incorporated. Everything got better: streets, lighting, garbage service, law enforcement and that indefinable quality called civic engagement.
Credit goes to a smart cohesive group of City Council members. Unlike other new cities in the county, Citrus Heights was largely built out when it incorporated. With no revenue-generating growth spurt, the city had to live within its means. While other local governments overspent during the good times and now are facing layoffs and furloughs, Citrus Heights has no debt and a healthy reserve of $36 million.
It has made prudent investments, established its own Police Department, and built a new civic center and city hall, all with cash."
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/01/3070549/turner-incumbents-for-citrus-heights.html#ixzz117cgNvL4
So what can we learn from this? First, it is possible. Citrus Heights had its own coalition of naysayers, spouting the same bad rhetoric we're seeing in Arden Arcade right now. They ignored the critics, and went ahead and created a city to be proud of. Don't believe it? Go to the city's web site and look up their resident satisfaction survey.
Second, the council counts. This blurb was taken from an article endorsing certain candidates for the Citrus Heights city council. The praise for what the city has done was incidental to the need for quality people on the council leading the way. Just as ignoring the fear-mongers is important here, as it was there, taking the time to get to know the council candidates and vote wisely will be crucual to our success.
Luckily, we have a group of people who are dedicated and intelligent on the ballot. I wouldn't vote for all of them, even if I could. But, I really don't think there is any group of seven that could be formed that would be a bad choice. But the better we are at picking our council members, the more the city will thrive in its early days and lay a solid foundation for our future.
***
When I started this blog, I made a promise to kick both sides in the knees (well, with the written word, anyway) when they screwed up. Until now, I haven't had a bad word to say about the incorporation group or the candidates. I really hate to do this, because the offender was a good friend long before we both got involved with incorporation, but I can't be quiet about this one.
Joel, you have done amazing things throughout this campaign. When no one (including most of the committee) thought it would be possible, you managed to lead the way, raising money every time it was needed, steering through the governmental red tape, and being the leading advocate for Arden Arcade. Hear that? Arden Arcade. Not Arden. But suddenly the Arcade part is missing from your web site and literature? I'm not sure what the motivation is here, maybe it's as simle as making things fit better. But, we are Arden, and we are also Arcade. And yes, many of us dislike the name. But until we become a city and chamge it, it's who we are. And excluding half of our population is not a wise move.
"A once tattered and neglected corner of The Uncity, that huge swath of unincorporated Sacramento County, Citrus Heights has transformed itself in just 13 years since it incorporated. Everything got better: streets, lighting, garbage service, law enforcement and that indefinable quality called civic engagement.
Credit goes to a smart cohesive group of City Council members. Unlike other new cities in the county, Citrus Heights was largely built out when it incorporated. With no revenue-generating growth spurt, the city had to live within its means. While other local governments overspent during the good times and now are facing layoffs and furloughs, Citrus Heights has no debt and a healthy reserve of $36 million.
It has made prudent investments, established its own Police Department, and built a new civic center and city hall, all with cash."
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/01/3070549/turner-incumbents-for-citrus-heights.html#ixzz117cgNvL4
So what can we learn from this? First, it is possible. Citrus Heights had its own coalition of naysayers, spouting the same bad rhetoric we're seeing in Arden Arcade right now. They ignored the critics, and went ahead and created a city to be proud of. Don't believe it? Go to the city's web site and look up their resident satisfaction survey.
Second, the council counts. This blurb was taken from an article endorsing certain candidates for the Citrus Heights city council. The praise for what the city has done was incidental to the need for quality people on the council leading the way. Just as ignoring the fear-mongers is important here, as it was there, taking the time to get to know the council candidates and vote wisely will be crucual to our success.
Luckily, we have a group of people who are dedicated and intelligent on the ballot. I wouldn't vote for all of them, even if I could. But, I really don't think there is any group of seven that could be formed that would be a bad choice. But the better we are at picking our council members, the more the city will thrive in its early days and lay a solid foundation for our future.
***
When I started this blog, I made a promise to kick both sides in the knees (well, with the written word, anyway) when they screwed up. Until now, I haven't had a bad word to say about the incorporation group or the candidates. I really hate to do this, because the offender was a good friend long before we both got involved with incorporation, but I can't be quiet about this one.
Joel, you have done amazing things throughout this campaign. When no one (including most of the committee) thought it would be possible, you managed to lead the way, raising money every time it was needed, steering through the governmental red tape, and being the leading advocate for Arden Arcade. Hear that? Arden Arcade. Not Arden. But suddenly the Arcade part is missing from your web site and literature? I'm not sure what the motivation is here, maybe it's as simle as making things fit better. But, we are Arden, and we are also Arcade. And yes, many of us dislike the name. But until we become a city and chamge it, it's who we are. And excluding half of our population is not a wise move.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Stand - in the Place Where You Live
Think about direction, wonder why you have it now...
No, I don't have a flipping clue what Michael Stipe meant by that. But despite that, I have been thinking a lot about direction lately. And I'm convinced that as a community, we're heading in the right one.
Tonight incorporation came home for me. The cute blond and I hosted a community share for our own subdivision. It was a small target, and we weren't sure what to expect. But we had about thirty people come out and share ideas, get answers to questions (including some tough ones), and be a community. Some had already committed, and others were still skeptical. But I think everyone left with more information than they had when they arrived, and we din't have to bring home too many cookies.
If you found this blog from the meeting tonight, or from last night's candidate forum at the Association of Realtors building, welcome. Please consider this your forum. Amid all my rants and raves, your thoughts are welcome.
Tonight was special for me, since the focus was on my home turf. It was exciting to see the community discussing issues importance to us on a micro-local level. But the real telling moment came when my 7 year old daughter came up to me and said she was having a wonderful evening just playing in the park. If you know Santa Anita Park, you know it's not a place where you usually see children playing after dark. But in that moment, there was a glimpse of something very, very right. If we can come together as a community and make this incorporation work, we will have the opportunity to roll up our sleeves and get to work, and make this a place where we don't have to worry if our kids go to the park to play, and stay a little longer than we expected. I'm an emotional guy to begin with, but this gave me real, honest-to-goodness goosebumps.
***
Let's see now... there are a couple more meetings coming up that I know of, and probably more that I don't know about. October 6th will be Politics in a Smoke-Filled Room, at Tobacco Road. Two of our council candidates, Bob Stevens and Matt Powers, both retired law enforcement, will meet with anyone who wants to drop by, have a cigar, and talk about the issues. The focus will be on police protection and public safety, but I'm sure other topics will come up.
Thursday, October 14th, will be the Santa Anita Community Forum at Howe Park (in the community center). We are hoping to make this a full debate, but as of yet the opposition hasn't responded with a speaker. If you are reading this and want to speak against cityhood, let Jane know and we'll see what we can do.
I had an interview with a reporter from the Bee today. Looks like a pretty big story is coming up, but I don't know much beyond that. I'll confess that these days, I rarely have time to read the paper, even though I do get it. So if you run across the article, drop me an email and let me know?
No, I don't have a flipping clue what Michael Stipe meant by that. But despite that, I have been thinking a lot about direction lately. And I'm convinced that as a community, we're heading in the right one.
Tonight incorporation came home for me. The cute blond and I hosted a community share for our own subdivision. It was a small target, and we weren't sure what to expect. But we had about thirty people come out and share ideas, get answers to questions (including some tough ones), and be a community. Some had already committed, and others were still skeptical. But I think everyone left with more information than they had when they arrived, and we din't have to bring home too many cookies.
If you found this blog from the meeting tonight, or from last night's candidate forum at the Association of Realtors building, welcome. Please consider this your forum. Amid all my rants and raves, your thoughts are welcome.
Tonight was special for me, since the focus was on my home turf. It was exciting to see the community discussing issues importance to us on a micro-local level. But the real telling moment came when my 7 year old daughter came up to me and said she was having a wonderful evening just playing in the park. If you know Santa Anita Park, you know it's not a place where you usually see children playing after dark. But in that moment, there was a glimpse of something very, very right. If we can come together as a community and make this incorporation work, we will have the opportunity to roll up our sleeves and get to work, and make this a place where we don't have to worry if our kids go to the park to play, and stay a little longer than we expected. I'm an emotional guy to begin with, but this gave me real, honest-to-goodness goosebumps.
***
Let's see now... there are a couple more meetings coming up that I know of, and probably more that I don't know about. October 6th will be Politics in a Smoke-Filled Room, at Tobacco Road. Two of our council candidates, Bob Stevens and Matt Powers, both retired law enforcement, will meet with anyone who wants to drop by, have a cigar, and talk about the issues. The focus will be on police protection and public safety, but I'm sure other topics will come up.
Thursday, October 14th, will be the Santa Anita Community Forum at Howe Park (in the community center). We are hoping to make this a full debate, but as of yet the opposition hasn't responded with a speaker. If you are reading this and want to speak against cityhood, let Jane know and we'll see what we can do.
I had an interview with a reporter from the Bee today. Looks like a pretty big story is coming up, but I don't know much beyond that. I'll confess that these days, I rarely have time to read the paper, even though I do get it. So if you run across the article, drop me an email and let me know?
Sunday, September 26, 2010
How Safe Do you Feel?
Cityhood opponents keep claiming the incorporation effort is using scare tactics to sway voters. Funny, but I never realized Sheriff John McGinness and the news staff at KCRA were working for the cityhood effort.
County May Lose as Many as 1000 Jobs
Sheriff's Department is "Reactive"
So let's work this through one more time. Cityhood opponents say everything is fine. Crime is not on the rise (Arden Park Homeowner's Association debate, August 2010). The Sheriff is handling things extremely well (same debate). Violent crime is actually on the decline (Mission Oaks North Homeowner's Association debate, earlier this summer). So why do all the crime statistics, and the words stright out of the Sheriff's mouth, all say otherwise?
Here is one thought. The leaders of Stay Sacramento tend to be clustered in the Arden Park area. And frankly, it's at least partially a money thing. Their level of protection is just fine, because they all pay extra to hire private (off duty cops) police protection. So they can pull into their gated drives at night, park in their garages, set the alarms on their houses, and feel pretty darn secure when they go to sleep at night. And God bless them for it! I'm serious. They have earned it, and they are entitled to it, and I'd be the last one to ever suggest they shouldn't have it.
But that does not mean they have the right to say that YOU can't be secure. They are perfectly happy to tell you that because they feel fine, you don't get to increase the police protection in your community. Because things are fine in their subdivisions, you don't get to improve code enforcement and put some restrictions on the massage parlors and head shops exploding around town. Because they can toss the kids in the Range Rover and drive them to school, they don't care that the hookers are propositioning dads when they drop off their kids ar Arcade Middle School.
This weekend I was able to get out and do just a little bit of canvassing, talking to people in the area. I love meeting people and getting to hear their questions. It turns out the Stay Sac folks have been canvassing as well. According to what several people told me, this was the pitch:
Canvasser: Do you want more taxes?
Resident: No, of course not!
Canvasser: Then put this sign in your yard, otherwise we will become a city and your taxes won't go up.
So again I feel I have to go through this...
IT'S A LIE, PEOPLE! THEY ARE LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH AT YOU!
OK, better now. A bit, I guess.
If you take the time to study the facts and decide you are opposed to cityhood, then by all means, put up a sign. Convince your neighbors. Shout it from the rooftops. Run ads on radio and television.
I can say that with complete confidence, because I have spoken with dozens of people who were opposed to incorporation, then when they got the facts and digested them, they became supporters. I have yet to speak with a single person who could profer a logical argument against incorporation, except for the ones who would lose some of the political capital they have accrued over the years (Duveneck, Blanas, Cahill, et al). And I'm very sorry, but the response "Well, I just don't see that." doesn't count.
On the other hand, if you've seen the gang tagging around Howe Park, or the hookers working Watt Avenue on this side of the freeway, or the newest massage parlor along Fulton (who owns that property, anyway?), then spend a little time getting facts, not fear mongering from the ones who are worried about their own apple carts. Then when you see the truth, get out there and talk to your neighbors. Support the living snot out of this. Your kids are depending on you.
County May Lose as Many as 1000 Jobs
Sheriff's Department is "Reactive"
So let's work this through one more time. Cityhood opponents say everything is fine. Crime is not on the rise (Arden Park Homeowner's Association debate, August 2010). The Sheriff is handling things extremely well (same debate). Violent crime is actually on the decline (Mission Oaks North Homeowner's Association debate, earlier this summer). So why do all the crime statistics, and the words stright out of the Sheriff's mouth, all say otherwise?
Here is one thought. The leaders of Stay Sacramento tend to be clustered in the Arden Park area. And frankly, it's at least partially a money thing. Their level of protection is just fine, because they all pay extra to hire private (off duty cops) police protection. So they can pull into their gated drives at night, park in their garages, set the alarms on their houses, and feel pretty darn secure when they go to sleep at night. And God bless them for it! I'm serious. They have earned it, and they are entitled to it, and I'd be the last one to ever suggest they shouldn't have it.
But that does not mean they have the right to say that YOU can't be secure. They are perfectly happy to tell you that because they feel fine, you don't get to increase the police protection in your community. Because things are fine in their subdivisions, you don't get to improve code enforcement and put some restrictions on the massage parlors and head shops exploding around town. Because they can toss the kids in the Range Rover and drive them to school, they don't care that the hookers are propositioning dads when they drop off their kids ar Arcade Middle School.
This weekend I was able to get out and do just a little bit of canvassing, talking to people in the area. I love meeting people and getting to hear their questions. It turns out the Stay Sac folks have been canvassing as well. According to what several people told me, this was the pitch:
Canvasser: Do you want more taxes?
Resident: No, of course not!
Canvasser: Then put this sign in your yard, otherwise we will become a city and your taxes won't go up.
So again I feel I have to go through this...
IT'S A LIE, PEOPLE! THEY ARE LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH AT YOU!
OK, better now. A bit, I guess.
If you take the time to study the facts and decide you are opposed to cityhood, then by all means, put up a sign. Convince your neighbors. Shout it from the rooftops. Run ads on radio and television.
I can say that with complete confidence, because I have spoken with dozens of people who were opposed to incorporation, then when they got the facts and digested them, they became supporters. I have yet to speak with a single person who could profer a logical argument against incorporation, except for the ones who would lose some of the political capital they have accrued over the years (Duveneck, Blanas, Cahill, et al). And I'm very sorry, but the response "Well, I just don't see that." doesn't count.
On the other hand, if you've seen the gang tagging around Howe Park, or the hookers working Watt Avenue on this side of the freeway, or the newest massage parlor along Fulton (who owns that property, anyway?), then spend a little time getting facts, not fear mongering from the ones who are worried about their own apple carts. Then when you see the truth, get out there and talk to your neighbors. Support the living snot out of this. Your kids are depending on you.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Like Nailing Jell-o to the Wall
Hey, I'm a nice guy. Really. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to call a spade a spade, or call out a lie when I hear it, but it does mean that I try to be super nice and polite around people who don't know me, especially total strangers.
But I will admit to being tested today. Got a call from school around lunch time. Turns out my son was going to go home with a friend after school was out. The friend's dad was going to take him and several other boys over to his mom's (the boy's grandma), where I could pick him up this evening.
So far, so good. Til I drove up to the house and saw the "Stay Sacramento - No on Measure D" sign in the front yard. Ick! But I swallowed and walked up to the door. The kid's grandma was nice, and the home was well appointed. She told the kids to get out of the pool, and my son went to change into his street clothes. Just making conversation, I asked why she had the sign in her yard. The way she bristled, you would have thought I'd thrown acid at her grandson. Her answer was extremely curt: "We would never support that!" As if that was torturing bunnies or something similar.
Well durn my hide, I just couldn't leave well enough alone. She asked if I was in favor of cityhood, and I was off and running. In less than a minute I told her how police services were at a third of recommended levels, how the hookers pretty much own Watt Avenue, how the gangs are fighting for control of the area around Howe Park. I told her how the sheriff was constrained by budgets that prevent doing anything about it. And I told her that my son, and her grandson, deserved better.
The whole time just stood there with a smug look that clearly communicated that I was wasting my time with facts - her mind was made up. But as I concluded my "mellow rant", something occurred to me. The thing we need to fight is not Stay Sacramento. Their intellectually and ethically bankrupt smoke and mirrors tricks aren't hurting our efforts. If anything it seems like every time we engage them in a debate, we gain a number of supporters. No, the real enemies are apathy and inertia.
When supporters get together lately, the conversation always seems to run towards "our signs vs their signs." But we need to remember that 90% of the homes in Arden Arcade still have NO signs. These are the people we need to reach. And that is why it's so vitally important that supporters are out walking the precincts, meeting people, and politely sharing the benefits of cityhood. We don't need more signs, although they are nice to see. But on November 2nd, no one is going to count the number of signs to declare the winners. They count votes, and many of those votes will have to come from the no-sign folks.
Inertia - the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest. Last week I stopped off at a local business to talk with the owner about a candidates event. As we spoke several people in the room were listening, and started asking me questions. Over the next half hour we discussed all the major talking points - schools, police, blight, section 8 housing, massage parlors and head shops - and when I left, two of them told me they had become supporters on the spot. No sales pitch, no close, no asking for the order. Both of them had said they knew the vote was coming up, but hadn't really started looking into the matter. One even said he works in Citrus Heights, and because of what he sees there, was leaning toward a yes vote, but had no reason beyond that. All of this goes to show that simple conversations will beat out all the signs, bumper stickers, and t-shirts that we can print. Not that those are bad things.
I'll close by repeating last week's challenge. Make this personal. In the next week go find two undecuded voters, and engage them in conversation. Be polite, but show your passion. Then, no matter the result, come back here and leave a comment about the experience.
***
Wow, there are so many meetings over the next 2-3 weeks that I'm having trouble keeping them straight. Thankfully I have a wife to help with that. We have a meeting somewhere this Thursday evening. I think it's the Wright Street Homewoners group. Check the cityhood web site, or Jane's Arden Arcadian, or even the Save Arden Arcade - Yes On D Facebook page. Links for all of them are on the right.
***
Jane and I have been discussing something I find incredibly interesting. I've also run it past a couple cops and they think our conclusion is right.
The Stay Sav web site shows a sign of theirs that has been vandalized. Of course, they accuse our side of doing it. I think that's ludicrous, because if we wanted to eliminate their message, we'd pull the thing out of the ground and toss in into a dumpster. Not that I would ever suggest anything like that, of course.
But this sign was vandalized, and left in place. If you go look at the sign, you will see that some of the wording is still visible. In Blue: "No Hood". And in Red: "Stay Sac" (not Sacramento). Now, if you were a blood (the ones who wear red), and you wanted to send a message to the crips (blue), wouldn't the idea of no hood for the blue, while the red will stay Sac, be a pretty overt way to do so?
Yet, the PhD's at Stay Sacramento think we vandalized their sign. Do they really have their heads that far into the sand, that they can't see the gang activity growing around them? Oh wait, I forgot. They pay for private cops to keep those types out of their neighborhoods. But apparently they think it's perfectly fine for them to take over your areas. And they call themselves a group of community-minded individuals. Go figure.
But I will admit to being tested today. Got a call from school around lunch time. Turns out my son was going to go home with a friend after school was out. The friend's dad was going to take him and several other boys over to his mom's (the boy's grandma), where I could pick him up this evening.
So far, so good. Til I drove up to the house and saw the "Stay Sacramento - No on Measure D" sign in the front yard. Ick! But I swallowed and walked up to the door. The kid's grandma was nice, and the home was well appointed. She told the kids to get out of the pool, and my son went to change into his street clothes. Just making conversation, I asked why she had the sign in her yard. The way she bristled, you would have thought I'd thrown acid at her grandson. Her answer was extremely curt: "We would never support that!" As if that was torturing bunnies or something similar.
Well durn my hide, I just couldn't leave well enough alone. She asked if I was in favor of cityhood, and I was off and running. In less than a minute I told her how police services were at a third of recommended levels, how the hookers pretty much own Watt Avenue, how the gangs are fighting for control of the area around Howe Park. I told her how the sheriff was constrained by budgets that prevent doing anything about it. And I told her that my son, and her grandson, deserved better.
The whole time just stood there with a smug look that clearly communicated that I was wasting my time with facts - her mind was made up. But as I concluded my "mellow rant", something occurred to me. The thing we need to fight is not Stay Sacramento. Their intellectually and ethically bankrupt smoke and mirrors tricks aren't hurting our efforts. If anything it seems like every time we engage them in a debate, we gain a number of supporters. No, the real enemies are apathy and inertia.
When supporters get together lately, the conversation always seems to run towards "our signs vs their signs." But we need to remember that 90% of the homes in Arden Arcade still have NO signs. These are the people we need to reach. And that is why it's so vitally important that supporters are out walking the precincts, meeting people, and politely sharing the benefits of cityhood. We don't need more signs, although they are nice to see. But on November 2nd, no one is going to count the number of signs to declare the winners. They count votes, and many of those votes will have to come from the no-sign folks.
Inertia - the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest. Last week I stopped off at a local business to talk with the owner about a candidates event. As we spoke several people in the room were listening, and started asking me questions. Over the next half hour we discussed all the major talking points - schools, police, blight, section 8 housing, massage parlors and head shops - and when I left, two of them told me they had become supporters on the spot. No sales pitch, no close, no asking for the order. Both of them had said they knew the vote was coming up, but hadn't really started looking into the matter. One even said he works in Citrus Heights, and because of what he sees there, was leaning toward a yes vote, but had no reason beyond that. All of this goes to show that simple conversations will beat out all the signs, bumper stickers, and t-shirts that we can print. Not that those are bad things.
I'll close by repeating last week's challenge. Make this personal. In the next week go find two undecuded voters, and engage them in conversation. Be polite, but show your passion. Then, no matter the result, come back here and leave a comment about the experience.
***
Wow, there are so many meetings over the next 2-3 weeks that I'm having trouble keeping them straight. Thankfully I have a wife to help with that. We have a meeting somewhere this Thursday evening. I think it's the Wright Street Homewoners group. Check the cityhood web site, or Jane's Arden Arcadian, or even the Save Arden Arcade - Yes On D Facebook page. Links for all of them are on the right.
***
Jane and I have been discussing something I find incredibly interesting. I've also run it past a couple cops and they think our conclusion is right.
The Stay Sav web site shows a sign of theirs that has been vandalized. Of course, they accuse our side of doing it. I think that's ludicrous, because if we wanted to eliminate their message, we'd pull the thing out of the ground and toss in into a dumpster. Not that I would ever suggest anything like that, of course.
But this sign was vandalized, and left in place. If you go look at the sign, you will see that some of the wording is still visible. In Blue: "No Hood". And in Red: "Stay Sac" (not Sacramento). Now, if you were a blood (the ones who wear red), and you wanted to send a message to the crips (blue), wouldn't the idea of no hood for the blue, while the red will stay Sac, be a pretty overt way to do so?
Yet, the PhD's at Stay Sacramento think we vandalized their sign. Do they really have their heads that far into the sand, that they can't see the gang activity growing around them? Oh wait, I forgot. They pay for private cops to keep those types out of their neighborhoods. But apparently they think it's perfectly fine for them to take over your areas. And they call themselves a group of community-minded individuals. Go figure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)